4.7 Article

Glycated albumin as a diagnostic tool for diabetes in a general Japanese population

Journal

METABOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
Volume 64, Issue 6, Pages 698-705

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2015.03.003

Keywords

Glycated albumin; Diabetes; Oral glucose tolerance test

Funding

  1. Japan Heart Foundation/Bayer Yakuhin Research Grant Abroad
  2. Japan Multi-institutional Collaborative Cohort Study (J-MICC Study)
  3. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports Science and Technology of Japan [221S001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Diabetes mellitus is a major cause of cardiovascular, kidney, neurologic, and eye diseases, and may be preventable in some cases by lifestyle modification. Screening tests for diabetes mellitus include fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Our objective was to evaluate the utility of plasma glycated albumin (GA) in the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. Design and methods. A cross-sectional, community-based population study of 908 nondiabetic Japanese residents was conducted. Of these subjects, 176 with FPG value between 5.5 and 6.9 mmol/l, and an HbA1c level of <6.5% received an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Results. The OGTT results were used for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus using World Health Organization criteria. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses demonstrated that optimal threshold values for the diagnosis of diabetes in this population were 15.2% for GA and 5.9% for HbA1c, respectively. Using these cutoff levels, the sensitivity of GA at 62.1% for detecting diabetes was the same as that of HbA1c. However the specificity for GA for detecting diabetes was 61.9%, while for HbA1c it was higher at 66.7%. Conclusions. Our results indicate that the measurement of glycated albumin may serve as a useful screening test for diabetes in a general Japanese population. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available